|
|
|
|
Family Law Cases, Federal and State
FILE-NAME: MEGA
COVERAGE: May vary by court. Please refer to guide document for individual
courts for coverage information.
FREQUENCY: As received from the court
CONTENT-SUMMARY:
The Family Law Cases, Federal and State file contains federal and state case law involving family law issues.
COMPLETE FILE:
AK Family Cases
AL Family Cases
AR Family Cases
AZ Family Cases
CA Family Cases
CO Family Cases
CT Family Cases
DC Family Cases
DE Family Cases
FL Family Cases
GA Family Cases
HI Family Cases
IA Family Cases
ID Family Cases
IL Family Cases
IN Family Cases
KS Family Cases
KY Family Cases
LA Family Cases
MA Family Cases
MD Family Cases
MI Family Cases
MN Family Cases
MO Family Cases
MS Family Cases
MT Family Cases
NC Family Cases
ND Family Cases
NE Family Cases
NH Family Cases
NJ Family Cases
NM Family Cases
NV Family Cases
NY Family Cases
OH Family Cases
OK Family Cases
OR Family Cases
PA Family Cases
RI Family Cases
SC Family Cases
SD Family Cases
TN Family Cases
TX Family Cases
UT Family Cases
VA Family Cases
VT Family Cases
WA Family Cases
WI Family Cases
WV Family Cases
WY Family Cases
SELECTED DOCUMENTS:
2nd Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
3rd Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
4th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
5th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
6th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
7th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
8th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
10th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
11th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
District of Columbia Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
Federal Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers' Edition
ALSO-CONTAINS:
ME Family Cases
SPECIAL-CHAR:
The DATE segment can be restricted using BEF, AFT or = commands.
DOC-DESCRIPTION:
A document consists of a single case or disposition. Majority opinions,
decisions, and orders along with accompanying concurring or dissenting opinions.
DISPLAY-SEQUENCE:
Documents display in reverse chronological order.
USE-TIPS:
Caselaw on the the LEXIS (R) Service contains many features to aid you finding
the most current and complete research results possible.
LEXSEE:
When you know the official or parallel cite to a case, including the LEXIS
cite, you can view that case from anywhere on the LEXIS service. Simply enter
LEXSEE (or LXE) and the cite. For example:
LXE 1992 U.S. LEXIS 4751
LINKS:
Within caselaw documents embedded citations and citations the United States
Code are marked with highlighted LINKS (R). The cited case or code section can
be viewed in full by simply entering = and the number in the highlighted LINK.
For Example, in the following paragraph:
(a) A review of the Court's relevant decisions demonstrates the constitutional
requirements regarding consideration of mitigating circumstances by sentencers
in capital cases. Although the sentencer cannot be precluded from considering,
as a mitigating factor, any aspect of the defendant's character or record and
any of the circumstances of the particular offense that the defendant proffers
as a basis for a sentence [*3] less than death, see, e.g., <=3> Lockett
v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973, 98 S. Ct. 2954 (plurality
opinion); <=4> Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1, 102 S. Ct.
869, States are free to structure and shape consideration of mitigating
evidence in an effort to achieve a more rational and equitable administration
of the death penalty, see, e.g., <=5> Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370,
377. <=6> Pp.8-11, 108 L. Ed. 2d 316, 110 S. Ct. 1190 .
=3 will retrieve Lockett v. Ohio
=4 will retrieve Eddings v. Oklahoma
=5 will retrieve Boyde v. California
You can return to the case (or cases) in your original result set by entering
EXIT SERVICE (or .es).
PAGINATION:
All LEXIS caselaw is paginated. Cases include LEXIS pagination along
with the pagination from official and parallel reporters. To move to a specific
page enter p* and the number of the page. When more than one pagination system
is used for a case, the page numbers are differentiated by the number of stars
(asterisks) preceding the page number. When a case contains official
pagination, those page numbers will always be preceded by a single star.
At any point in your result set you may enter p to view a listing of the number
of pages and LEXIS screen faces in a particular case.
AUTO-CITE:
You can enter the AUTO-CITE (R) service from anywhere on LEXIS by entering AC.
This electronic citation service of Lawyers Cooperative Publishing provides you
with the prior history and official status of case law citations.
You may auto-cite the case you are viewing automatically by simply entering AC.
Return to your result set by entering EXIT SERVICE (or .es).
Note: You may automatically auto-cite embedded case citations by entering =,
the LINK number and ac. For example =2ac.
SHEPARD'S:
Shepard's(R) Citations are publications of Shepard's, a member of the
LEXIS-NEXIS Group. Using Shepard's on the LEXIS service allows you to
simultaneously search the bound volumes of Shepard's Federal, State and National
Reporter System, and their supplements. Simply enter Shepards (or Shep or sh)
and the cite of the case you wish to Shepardize. For example:
SH 401 U.S. 1
Like the Auto-cite service you can automatically Shepardize the case you are
viewing by entering SH. You may Shepardize embedded citations by entering =,
the LINK number and sh. For example, =2sh.
Return to your original result set by entering EXIT SERVICE or .es.
An additional benefit of Shepard's on LEXIS is the ability, from within the
Shepard's service to view the text of the citing cases. This is done by simply
entering the number next to the citation. You may return to Shepard's by
entering resume shep, return to your original result set by entering EXIT
SERVICE, or use the new LOG FEATURE.
THE .LOG FEATURE:
The .LOG feature on LEXIS provides you with a 'map' of the services you have
used and a LINK back to those services. With so many options available on the
LEXIS service, it is possible to lose track of your exact location on the
information highway. .LOG is available to provide an easy LINK back to any
point in your research. Simply enter .log and LEXIS will display a list of the
LEXSEE, LEXSTAT, AUTO-CITE and SHEPARD'S choices you have made and provide a
quick LINK back to any of those choices.
Exit .LOG by pressing the ENTER key.
You may also use .LOG to retrieve any result set that you may have saved using
the .keep functionality.
.KEEP
After you have obtained a result set anywhere on LEXIS, you may save that
result set to your LOG and retrieve it, without charge, anytime during that
day!
Simply enter .keep from anywhere in your result set and it is saved to the log.
Note: Once you save a result set to the log you will be returned to your main
menu.
*****************************************************************************
For Help with LEXIS caselaw, or any materials, call Customer Service toll-free
at 1-800-543-6862
*****************************************************************************
HIER-LOC:
Area of Law - By Topic/Family Law/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/General Business/Find Cases
SAMPLE-DOC:
PRESTON D. McABEE, Appellant. v. CAROLE J. McABEE
No. 06-3064
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9731
January 18, 2008, Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 6, 2008, Opinion Filed
NOTICE: NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION UNDER THIRD CIRCUIT INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURE RULE 5.7. SUCH OPINIONS ARE NOT REGARDED AS PRECEDENTS WHICH BIND THE COURT.
PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (D. C. No. 05-cv-02117). District Judge: Hon. Legrome D. Davis.
CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant, a divorced husband, sued appellee, his former wife, alleging that she breached an agreement that provided for the disposal of real property that they had jointly owned during their marriage. The husband appealed after the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied his claim for specific performance and dismissed his remaining claims, finding that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over them.
OVERVIEW: Pursuant to the parties' amended agreement, the wife paid money to the husband and he executed a deed transferring ownership of the property to her. The husband filed the suit after the wife failed to record the deed. He sought to specifically enforce the parties' original agreement, which required the property to be sold within three years. He also sought other relief. The district court granted summary judgment to the wife on the husband's specific enforcement claim and held that it lacked jurisdiction over his claims for other relief because those claims did not meet the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332. The court found no error. The husband's specific performance claim failed because by its terms, the amended agreement superseded the original agreement. His alleged damages, apart from that claim, were below the jurisdictional amount. Under Pennsylvania law, the deed, even though unrecorded, transferred ownership of the property to the wife. She was solely responsible for bills related to the property. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting limited relief with regard to the husband's motions to compel.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's judgment.
CORE TERMS: deed, addendum, matter jurisdiction, mortgage, summary judgment, ownership, executed deed, jurisdictional amount, discovery, specific performance, transferring, counterclaim, homeowner's, amount in controversy, diversity of citizenship, executed and delivered, sole ownership, attorney's fees, abuse of discretion, diversity, indemnify, favorable, harmless, delivery, prevail, moot, novo, remaining claims, required to pay, mortgage payments
LexisNexis® Headnotes Show
COUNSEL: For PRESTON D. MCABEE, Plaintiff - Appellant: J. Michael Considine, Jr., Esq., West Chester, PA.
CAROLE J. MCABEE, Defendant - Appellee, Pro se, West Chester, PA.
JUDGES: Before: SCIRICA , Chief Judge, BARRY and ROTH , Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: ROTH
OPINION
ROTH , Circuit Judge:
Preston McAbee appeals the dismissal of his suit against Carole J. McAbee. The two jointly owned certain real property at the time of their divorce in 1992. They entered into an agreement as to the disposal of the property in 1992 and modified that agreement in 1995. Preston now claims that Carole breached the 1995 agreement. Because we agree with the District Court that the ownership of the property is not in question and that the remaining claims do not rise to the amount required for diversity jurisdiction, we will affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Because we write primarily for the benefit of the parties, we will only briefly revisit the facts here. During their marriage, Preston and Carole jointly owned property at 708 Andover Court, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
On June 4, 1992, Preston and Carole [*2] entered into a written agreement memorializing the terms of their divorce settlement. The agreement permitted Carole to reside exclusively in the property for up to three years, during which time she was required to put the house on the market in order to sell it prior to the expiration of those three years. Pending the sale of the home,Carole was required to pay the mortgage payments, including the homeowner's insurance and taxes and associated homeowner's fees. In the event the house was not sold at the end of the three year period, Preston was responsible for marketing the property for sale. Preston was also required to pay Carole alimony pending the sale of the property and immediately afterwards.
On August 14, 1995, Preston and Carole executed a written addendum to the 1992 agreement. The addendum modified the obligations imposed on the parties by the 1992 agreement. In exchange for receiving an executed deed from Preston transferring sole ownership of the property to Carole, Carole agreed to pay Preston $ 16,000 to be primarily responsible on the mortgage, and to indemnify and hold Preston harmless on any debt related to the mortgage. The parties expressly agreed that this constituted [*3] full satisfaction of any obligation to divide the real estate or to pay further alimony under the 1992 agreement. The addendum made no reference to recording the executed deed.
In August 1995 Carole paid the $ 16,000 to Preston pursuant to the addendum. Preston executed a deed transferring ownership of the property to Carole, and delivered the executed deed by mail to Carole's counsel. Preston also signed a letter addressed to the mortgage holder stating that Carole was assuming the mortgage and title of the property, and that Preston waived any rights to money in escrow.
The 1995 deed was never recorded. Despite delivery of the 1995 deed, Preston continued to receive certain bills associated with the property, including electric bills, bills for mortgage payment, and notice of a judgment against Preston for failure to pay homeowners' fees. Preston paid some of these bills and wrote two letters to Carole's attorney to resolve this situation, specifically demanding that his name be removed from all official records establishing co-ownership of the property. Preston did not receive a response.
Preston filed a complaint against Carole on May 4, 2005, seeking (1) specific performance of [*4] the 1992 agreement in the form of the sale of the premises; (2) transfer of title to Carole to avoid the incurrence of condominium fees, liability, and other expenses; and (3) equitable relief in the form of an order permitting Preston, his appraiser, and other agents to access the premises. Carole filed a counterclaim seeking an Order requiring Preston to execute a new deed transferring sole title of the property to Carole. 1 On March 22, 2006,Carole filed a motion for summary judgment. After holding a hearing, the District Court found that Preston was not entitled to specific performance on the 1992 agreement, and that Preston's other claims and Carole's counterclaim must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because ownership of the house was not at issue (as Pennsylvania law provides that an executed and delivered deed suffices to transfer ownership), none of the remaining claims reached the $ 75,000 amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
[text omitted from Sample]
|
|
